the assignee(s) of the Duty MUST satisfy the Duty.

[simonstey]

http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty:

A Duty MAY have none or one assigner and/or assignee property values (of type Party) for functional roles. (Other function sub-properties MAY be used.)
[...]
The Duty class also has these additional requirements:

• The assignee MUST have the ability to exercise the Duty Action.
• The assignee(s) of the Duty MUST satisfy the Duty.

http://w3c.github.io/poe/model/#duty-perm:

If there are no assigner and/or assignee properties declared in the Duty, then these functional roles will be the same as those declared in the referring Permission.

1. assignee of the duty must satisfy == assignee of the duty must exercise the duty action?
2. who is considered to be the "assignee of the duty" in the following two examples ->

<http://example.com/policy:1>
  a odrl:Policy ;
  odrl:permission [
    a odrl:Permission ;
    odrl:target ex:asset_9898 ;
    odrl:action odrl:reproduce ;
    odrl:assigner ex:Alice ;
    odrl:duty [ 
      a odrl:Duty ;
      odrl:action odrl:inform ;
      odrl:informingParty ex:Bob ;
      odrl:informedParty ex:Alice ;
    ]
  ] .

<http://example.com/policy:2>
  a odrl:Policy ;
  odrl:permission [
    a odrl:Permission ;
    odrl:target ex:asset_9898 ;
    odrl:action odrl:reproduce ;
    odrl:assigner ex:Alice ;
    odrl:assignee ex:Bob ;
    odrl:duty [ 
      a odrl:Duty ;
      odrl:action odrl:inform ;
      odrl:informingParty ex:Chad ;
      odrl:informedParty ex:Tom ;
    ]
  ] .

---

https://w3c.github.io/poe/vocab/#term-ensureExclusivity:

Definition: To ensure that the Rule on the Asset is exclusive.
Note: If used as a Duty, the assignee should be explicitly indicated as the party that is ensuring the exclusivity of the Rule.

what?

[nitmws]

Re this section:

The Duty class also has these additional requirements:

By my understanding of the IM these two bullets are optional:

• IF an assignee has been defined for this duty
  • THEN the assignee must have the ability ... and must satisfy ... .
  • ELSE an undefined party has to do that.

[simonstey]

IF an assignee has been defined for this duty
THEN the assignee must have the ability ... and must satisfy ... .
ELSE an undefined party has to do that.

Even though the assignee might not be the party that has to actually do the duty?

ensureExclusivity: The Assignee requires that the Assigner(s) ensure(s) that the permission on the Asset is exclusive to the Assignee.

(apart from the problems caused by -> If there are no assigner and/or assignee properties declared in the Duty, then these functional roles will be the same as those declared in the referring Permission.)

[vroddon]

What is the result from this issue?

[simonstey]

still not addressed

[riannella]

We should add a statement clarifying the use of non-core parties for Duties, as we do say "Other function sub-properties MAY be used".

How does this sound:

In cases where other functional roles are declared in a Duty, then the same requirements apply as for the assignee and assigner.

Comments?

[simonstey]

the point is that

1. this requirement is not always true ->

The Duty class also has these additional requirements:

• The assignee MUST have the ability to exercise the Duty Action.
• The assignee(s) of the Duty MUST satisfy the Duty.

as the assignee is not always the party that has to do a duty

2. and that one is too restrictive ->

If there are no assigner and/or assignee properties declared in the Duty, then these functional roles will be the same as those declared in the referring Permission.

as it would require using assignee/assigner from the referring Permission even if alternative party functions are used in the duty (e.g. informingParty/informedParty)

=> both of them can be addressed by (1) substituting assignee by something along the lines of "the party obligated to perform the duty" and (2) s/"no assigner and/or assignee properties"/"no party properties"/

[riannella]

Updated